"They are necessary to ensure we do not inadvertently include many older breeding technologies within the definition of genetic modification and do not change the intent of the current policy," Dr Smith said.
Today, scientists approached by the New Zealand Science Media Centre backed the move to review the definitions of GMOs.
Massey University Professor of Molecular Genetics Barry Scott said such decisions should not be made in the High Court.
It had now been 40 years since the development of recombinant DNA technologies -- and 20 years since the passing of the HSNO Act -- and significant advances in science and technology had left the country in a "time warp".
"Clarity around what is not a GMO is very much a first and essential step to address to avoid legal redress as occurred last year," Professor Scott said.
But he added a more general overhaul of the regulations was urgently needed for New Zealand, to take advantage of significant advances that had taken place.
"The highly risk averse nature of the current New Zealand regulations are way out of step with the current scientific knowledge available on GM technologies and the regulations and practices in most international jurisdictions," he said.
"This disjoint has led to a compliance regime that is excessive to what is needed to manage the low risk nature of most of the current GM techniques and technologies."
Scion manufacturing and bioproducts general manager Dr Elspeth MacRae said it was "a fallacy" that New Zealand was GMO-free and always had been.
She pointed out food ingredients on our shelves had been produced using GMOs, we eat cheese and other foods made using GMO mictobes, and the cotton in clothes we wear is often made from GMO fibre.
"The legislation is now almost two decades old and well out of step with the rapid advancement in science and the large amount of scientific evidence regarding the risks and benefits of genetic technologies."
Since legislation around GMOs was introduced, the country had become highly risk averse, and costs for applications for permission to evaluate technologies had risen sharply, which was "blocking innovation".
"New Zealand is a biological country and is likely to miss opportunities to capitalise on the benefits on GMO plants, including impacts that are positive for climate change and greenhouse gas emissions and our future liabilities under Kyoto and later agreements."
But Canterbury University genetics lecturer Professor Jack Heinemann felt that while the proposed revisions would help remove uncertainty, he saw no "additional impact of great relevance" to either research or industry, as the changes were "aligned with how most of us had interpreted the rules anyway".
